Bnet 2.0 replacing LAN - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
zealing
Canada806 Posts
| ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
On May 02 2010 23:45 FrozenArbiter wrote: Question: I remember an interview from a few weeks ago where they said they were re-considering putting LAN into the game, due to overwhelming feedback suggesting their Bnet solutions were not enough. Did I dream this? I can't find it when searching... Closest I've found is this, but it's not the one I remember: http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/interviews/7389-Designing-StarCraft-II-An-Interview-With-Blizzards-Dustin-Browder.3 Also this quote just makes me angry - basically equivocating people who want LAN with "people who pull wings off butterflies" - What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I can't read that without imagining him shifting uncomfortably and blustering bullshit-noises. | ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
| ||
|
Triple7
United States656 Posts
We've found that certainly for us, StarCraft is a vastly superior experience when playing against someone of equal skill as you, and that might not be your friends. It's much, much more fun when you're being matchmade against someone with your skill level, and believe me, that's something we've been working on perfecting in StarCraft II. In the beta, we're still ironing out all the kinks but you almost always feel like you should be matched against somebody of your skill level, who can play at the level you can play at. In StarCraft, if you're playing someone who is better or worse than you, it really loses some of its teeth. Seriously?! I don't agree at all; I like playing with my friends, even if they're way better than me ![]() | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
| ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
Bnet 2.0 is so bad in comparison. When retail hits and everyone has played single player, there's gonna be a lot more complaints about the lagginess of bnet I think | ||
|
Bisu-Fan
Russian Federation3339 Posts
On May 02 2010 15:40 Sent wrote: Because 10 years later, most of us who have small LANs have an internet connection that can handle all the people there. not if you're forwarding ports to one IP address, then the other ip's don't get much at all | ||
|
Bisu-Fan
Russian Federation3339 Posts
On May 03 2010 00:32 Triple7 wrote: Dustin Browder:Seriously?! I don't agree at all; I like playing with my friends, even if they're way better than me ![]() ME TOOOOOO IT"S SO MUCH FUNNER JUST PLAYING WITH PEOPLE YOU KNOW RIGHT???? | ||
|
Lollersauce
United States357 Posts
Still, what a load of BS. | ||
|
BlackHat
United States264 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
On May 03 2010 00:36 starcraft911 wrote: sounds like a problem on your end. When you host a game of sc2 it's always hosted on the server rather than on the hosts computer. There are no tcp/ip lan games in sc2. As long as you have your ports open for sc2 you should be fine. i must really be one of the only ones who pretty much has a lan experience everytime i play.. it seems like all my units obey commands immediatly and there is no fucking around with it | ||
|
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
Launch. No LAN or "authenticate only" LAN implementation. Rage. 4-6 Months from then: LAN unlocked. It's common knowledge that games sell the most in the first month(s) after release. It's safe to say that anyone that hasn't bought the game half a year after release, wouldn't have done it either way. From that point on, no LAN doesn't offer any more anti-piracy advantage. I'm not sure how the whole Blizzard-KeSPa deal will play out, but licencing fees are enforceable even with LAN up. It's the IP rights that matter, not the server you're playing on, and similar licencing deals have been in effect in countless other industries. Now obviously, if Blizzard announce up front that they will eventually patch LAN support into the game, this whole anti-piracy measure will lose its effect. The no-buy camp will just wait a couple months more before they get back to playing on Garena and ICCup and will not buy the game. The point is to eventually sway them into buying the game. After that, it doesn't matter how many 3rd party servers there are, the sale is already there. The real question, though: is it smart to intentionally gimp your product at launch, hurting the pro scene, when it's that same pro scene that has kept your previous games alive for so long? To that, I don't know the answer. | ||
|
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
Also, their servers seem to go down like 3 times a week. I know it's just the beta, but they can't guarantee that won't happen ever. sometimes, I don't even have access to the internet. It'd be nice to watch a replay or skirmish against an AI. but, nope, can't even do that. | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
It's just awful. Warcraft 3's BNet was about a million times better at everything. I haven't read the BNet forums too much but I can only hope there will be some massive changes come release time. Heck, even the icons are kind of ugly in SC2 compared to the simple WC3 ones. Plus you can't show them off (althought they're so easy to get it's not exactly a big deal). | ||
|
Hyperion2010
United States122 Posts
| ||
|
dNo_O
United States233 Posts
| ||
|
YunhOLee
Canada2470 Posts
| ||
|
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On May 02 2010 15:46 Sent wrote: Bring a switch? Problem solved? When I LANed SC1, very few of us had broadband. Times have changed? I love when people post stuff like this without evening thinking before they do so. Bnet 2.0 has a built in 100 MS latency so long as you are forced to log into it that latency will always be there, regardless of your connection speed. LAN will ALWAYS_ be better than over the internet, no matter how fast the connections get. People really need to learn the most basic stuff about networking before they start going off saying how 'most of us have broadband'. There is two things to a connection LATENCY and SPEED - these are independent of each other - latency being the time its takes to MAKE the connection speed being the time to takes to transfer a file once the connection has been made. You can very easily have 1000 latency but download at 600 KBPS once the connection is made. Latency is what affects play in video games, and lets be honest here, lower is always better. | ||
|
Sent
United States120 Posts
On May 03 2010 01:37 SichuanPanda wrote: I love when people post stuff like this without evening thinking before they do so. Bnet 2.0 has a built in 100 MS latency so long as you are forced to log into it that latency will always be there, regardless of your connection speed. LAN will ALWAYS_ be better than over the internet, no matter how fast the connections get. People really need to learn the most basic stuff about networking before they start going off saying how 'most of us have broadband'. There is two things to a connection LATENCY and SPEED - these are independent of each other - latency being the time its takes to MAKE the connection speed being the time to takes to transfer a file once the connection has been made. You can very easily have 1000 latency but download at 600 KBPS once the connection is made. Latency is what affects play in video games, and lets be honest here, lower is always better. So your issue isn't with having LAN capabilities it's the latency you're concerned with? /shrug | ||
| ||
